I am giving four passages that are placed throughout the paper – they thus appear disjointed. As I almost done with my paper, I may make a few changes before it is submitted. The first paragraph is an introduction, the next two are body paragraphs at different points in the paper and the last is a conclusion that most likely will be revised or may not function as a conclusion at all.
1. Looking at some inconsistencies inside Mansfield Park, leads me to believe the text is not as easily “boxed-in” to a narrative as we believe it to be. I am not arguing against the main narratives of the novel; patriarchy, domesticity, marriage or social class structure. However, what I am putting forth is the notion that there is enough contextual information for a concurrent narrative, that runs throughout and underneath the surface of the novel, one that is submissive to the main narrative and one that questions the existence of any narrative in general.
2. Through the discussion, we see Fanny’s ability to analyze and look underneath the surface level of objects, into the hypotheticals, the internal workings and even “interrelatedness” of objects. Both Mrs. Crawford and Edmund appear inferior to her intellect here and as such, Mrs. Crawford walks away to play her instrument of attention and Edmund admires Mrs. Crawford’s strength of character. Fanny, annoyed at this, turns herself from Edmund and begins one of the many scenes that show a deeper turn into the existence of another world. Austin, in an interesting choice of words, writes “Fanny turned farther into the window” (135). Fanny does not turn towards the window, but “into” it. The turning “into” the window is an interesting choice of words as one normally does not turn into something, unless one accidently “bump” into it. A few pages earlier, Austin actually describes this window as open, in a passage that does not stick out in the readers mind. There are no other circumstances of windows or doors being important to the novel, except for the Everton scene, where a closed gate becomes in integral part of a larger sexual metaphor. However, in that scene, described later on, the gate in relation to the scene is obvious to the reader where here, this window being open, as described four pages earlier on 131, is more subtle. In putting the two facts together, we thus have Fanny turning “into” an “open window”, as say one would walk into something that is open, as one would walk “into” the woods.
3. As with everything else in Mansfield Park, when we look at the smaller perspective, everything seems to arrange itself neatly into a very orderly “whole”. This “whole” narrative revolves around domesticity, human relationships, patriarchy and social status. The characters going into the woods, going out of civility (the Everton Mansion), into the uncivilized, “the woods”, is the uncivilized or the sexual, as seen from the serpentine walk, the gate and key metaphor, (the entrance into the female sexual domain) and the tearing of the female dress by the spikes as she walks into the woods. Miss Crawford and Maria’s independence in this scene lend themselves really nicely to the accepted narratives and thus Edwards argues that this scene become a place of ‘moral violence’ and that the “Setting becomes the image of moral violence” (54). What is interesting here is that nothing “shocking” really happens. We are just lead into a narrative and thus think something is happening – but did anything really happen, especially something as forceful as to elicit the words moral violence? If anything, it appears Edwards has bought the main narrative like a lemming going into the sea. There is no factual evidence that anything really happens, the time period they are actually in the woods does not lend itself to anything shocking happen, even for their time period. A few sexual allusions are given, the most shocking of which was the ripping of hem of a dress and a key fitting into a gate and none of which really come close to Mary Crawford’s great line in Lovers Vow – “Who wants to make love to me?” The tearing of a dress on a spike is the most Edwards can offer us here of this shocking scene and physically speaking, if the Hansel and Gretel were to leave a trail of breadcrumbs for hundreds of pages to a house – this is your house and Edwards is all to happy to enter this house. Do critics not take any of Austin’s earlier warnings seriously? Do they not question at all what is going on here maybe nothing more than a rouse, another extended scene of Lovers Vow with all act and no substance? Edwards and Trillings, who states the novel, once again, “is not for social freedom but for social stasis” and “that it rejects spiritness, vivacity, celerity and lightness. . .” are both sitting in a framework arguing with other about social status and not seeing that maybe, just maybe, none of this actually happening.
4. However, the end of the novel reverses everyone’s roles. Mrs. Bertram needs Susan, Edmund needs Fanny, Mr. Bertram needs Edmund & Fanny, Maria now in power, denies Mr. Rushworth and in doing so, denies Mrs. Norris her power. All roles are reversed and everyone’s identity is flipped, a mirror that has always been present, a duality that has been always been there, is initiated by the end. Our stable characters are not who they present themselves to be but that still is too obvious. Not only is the notion of power and will reversed, the structure of the novel is as well. The ending if read is as quick thirty page dash, as it brings a real tidy end to a narrative, a narrative that took over 430 pages to develop and in doing so, it is not consistent to how the rest of the novel is written, almost making it appear false. In the last thirty pages, Tom Bertram becomes sick and is on the verge of death only to miraculously recover, Edmund sees Mary for what she truly is as Fanny lets him know about her thoughts on Tom’s possible death and his inheritance, Maria leaves Mr. Rushworth, runs away with Mr. Crawford only to leave Crawford and Julia runs off with Mr. Yates. Everything is rushed through in a dream sequence of events and Austin was consistent with her novel, there should have been an additional hundred pages here easily. The ending only adds to the play with time, the opposite of the path, a time that should have taken much longer to cover such a distance. We are rushed from one even to another and even the ending lacks the very consistency Fanny was searching for.
1. Looking at some inconsistencies inside Mansfield Park, leads me to believe the text is not as easily “boxed-in” to a narrative as we believe it to be. I am not arguing against the main narratives of the novel; patriarchy, domesticity, marriage or social class structure. However, what I am putting forth is the notion that there is enough contextual information for a concurrent narrative, that runs throughout and underneath the surface of the novel, one that is submissive to the main narrative and one that questions the existence of any narrative in general.
2. Through the discussion, we see Fanny’s ability to analyze and look underneath the surface level of objects, into the hypotheticals, the internal workings and even “interrelatedness” of objects. Both Mrs. Crawford and Edmund appear inferior to her intellect here and as such, Mrs. Crawford walks away to play her instrument of attention and Edmund admires Mrs. Crawford’s strength of character. Fanny, annoyed at this, turns herself from Edmund and begins one of the many scenes that show a deeper turn into the existence of another world. Austin, in an interesting choice of words, writes “Fanny turned farther into the window” (135). Fanny does not turn towards the window, but “into” it. The turning “into” the window is an interesting choice of words as one normally does not turn into something, unless one accidently “bump” into it. A few pages earlier, Austin actually describes this window as open, in a passage that does not stick out in the readers mind. There are no other circumstances of windows or doors being important to the novel, except for the Everton scene, where a closed gate becomes in integral part of a larger sexual metaphor. However, in that scene, described later on, the gate in relation to the scene is obvious to the reader where here, this window being open, as described four pages earlier on 131, is more subtle. In putting the two facts together, we thus have Fanny turning “into” an “open window”, as say one would walk into something that is open, as one would walk “into” the woods.
3. As with everything else in Mansfield Park, when we look at the smaller perspective, everything seems to arrange itself neatly into a very orderly “whole”. This “whole” narrative revolves around domesticity, human relationships, patriarchy and social status. The characters going into the woods, going out of civility (the Everton Mansion), into the uncivilized, “the woods”, is the uncivilized or the sexual, as seen from the serpentine walk, the gate and key metaphor, (the entrance into the female sexual domain) and the tearing of the female dress by the spikes as she walks into the woods. Miss Crawford and Maria’s independence in this scene lend themselves really nicely to the accepted narratives and thus Edwards argues that this scene become a place of ‘moral violence’ and that the “Setting becomes the image of moral violence” (54). What is interesting here is that nothing “shocking” really happens. We are just lead into a narrative and thus think something is happening – but did anything really happen, especially something as forceful as to elicit the words moral violence? If anything, it appears Edwards has bought the main narrative like a lemming going into the sea. There is no factual evidence that anything really happens, the time period they are actually in the woods does not lend itself to anything shocking happen, even for their time period. A few sexual allusions are given, the most shocking of which was the ripping of hem of a dress and a key fitting into a gate and none of which really come close to Mary Crawford’s great line in Lovers Vow – “Who wants to make love to me?” The tearing of a dress on a spike is the most Edwards can offer us here of this shocking scene and physically speaking, if the Hansel and Gretel were to leave a trail of breadcrumbs for hundreds of pages to a house – this is your house and Edwards is all to happy to enter this house. Do critics not take any of Austin’s earlier warnings seriously? Do they not question at all what is going on here maybe nothing more than a rouse, another extended scene of Lovers Vow with all act and no substance? Edwards and Trillings, who states the novel, once again, “is not for social freedom but for social stasis” and “that it rejects spiritness, vivacity, celerity and lightness. . .” are both sitting in a framework arguing with other about social status and not seeing that maybe, just maybe, none of this actually happening.
4. However, the end of the novel reverses everyone’s roles. Mrs. Bertram needs Susan, Edmund needs Fanny, Mr. Bertram needs Edmund & Fanny, Maria now in power, denies Mr. Rushworth and in doing so, denies Mrs. Norris her power. All roles are reversed and everyone’s identity is flipped, a mirror that has always been present, a duality that has been always been there, is initiated by the end. Our stable characters are not who they present themselves to be but that still is too obvious. Not only is the notion of power and will reversed, the structure of the novel is as well. The ending if read is as quick thirty page dash, as it brings a real tidy end to a narrative, a narrative that took over 430 pages to develop and in doing so, it is not consistent to how the rest of the novel is written, almost making it appear false. In the last thirty pages, Tom Bertram becomes sick and is on the verge of death only to miraculously recover, Edmund sees Mary for what she truly is as Fanny lets him know about her thoughts on Tom’s possible death and his inheritance, Maria leaves Mr. Rushworth, runs away with Mr. Crawford only to leave Crawford and Julia runs off with Mr. Yates. Everything is rushed through in a dream sequence of events and Austin was consistent with her novel, there should have been an additional hundred pages here easily. The ending only adds to the play with time, the opposite of the path, a time that should have taken much longer to cover such a distance. We are rushed from one even to another and even the ending lacks the very consistency Fanny was searching for.